How about, instead of changing the definition of marriage to include gays, we remove the government's hand from the definition of marriage altogether. I say, let the church dictate who can or can't get 'married.' Then let anyone who wants to have rights in the eyes of the government in terms of what we now call marriages get a 'civil ceremony,' whether you're straight, gay or lesbian. What say you?
I say let gay people get legal marriages. What you propose would damage the nuclear family unit more than letting same sex partners create that family in my opinion. Instead of removing the consideration of families from our government and replacing it with a generic tax status anyone can achieve, I say we simply open it up to others. Of course back before I was married I would probably have said we should just not give incentives or tax breaks to married people or let them file jointly, now that I have a family I think it is in the best interest of the country to promote family and incentives for those families to develop. From my own experience workers with families are more reliable in general. They have more incentive to stay put and show up for work. Churches can already refuse to marry whoever they want and there are plenty of people who will marry anyone legally regardless of their religion or anything else (except the laws of course). Even if I am wrong on all that, I think there are more important things for the government to worry about than who can marry whom.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the original post. The hypothetical proposition is that we'd replace marriage as it stands in the eyes of the government with something else. They don't have to be called civil unions, they can be called togetherships or whatever you want. My point is that they wouldn't be called 'marriages,' as that terms is tied directly to the church and the biggest reason Christians don't want these people to have the same title. That's fine, too. As long as we remove 'marriage' from government control completely and let the church (of whichever religion) dictate who can be married in the eyes of the church. But in the eyes of the government, there should be no difference between any couple in regard to sexual orientation. I agree with you there but only in terms of promoting family. Exactly. I don't think a lot of people get that. In fact, I know a lot of people don't -- this is one of the biggest arguments in opposition. If the government had such limited focus, I'd agree. But since the government consists of multiple branches who have the power to 'worry' about these types of things, I think it's definitely within reason to consider the rights of individuals. I think it's safe to say that we're talking about the Christian church, as they're the ones pushing hardest to eliminate the rights of gay couples and also because the holy bible is what elected government officials are sworn in on.
gay marriage is just another topic like abortion for people to argue about and no matter what the outcome of the argument, from regular joe to president - the situation won't change. it's a clever way of distracting people from the issues that matter. gay marriage? who the fvck cares, honestly, how many people does it effect? we're in economic chaos. not to belittle the OP - i agree mostly. the government shouldn't have a hand in it.
Gay marriage is open to fraud that is very hard to prove. It would be very eaisy to marry your straight roommate to get benefits. Guys in the miitary could marry each other to get extra money for being married. Illegal aliens could use gay marriage for marriage fraud to get green cards.
marriage is open to fraud that is very hard to prove. It would be very easy to marry your female friend to get benefits. men and women in the military could marry each other to get extra money for being married. Illegal aliens could use marriage for marriage fraud to get green cards. So as you see, Your ad hoc "reasons" for opposing same sex marriage aren't exclusive to same sex marriage and could, would and do apply to all marriage. So in your vain attempt to mask your homophobia and disguise it as legitimate concerns you have actually made a case against all marriage.
I don't support gay marriage, I never will. Lets just hope that Obama doesn't have to appoint any judges in the next 4 years or we're doomed.
So you're saying we should ignore issues like abortion, gay marriage and the death penalty? You're right, these things just tend to work themselves out. Obviously people give a shit about it, or it wouldn't be such an issue. In fact, no one would give two shits if someone got married to a goat if no one cared. But the fact is -- they do. It's important to talk about, just like the energy crisis. Just like how people can have abortions and when and who gets notified.
How is that any different from what straight people can do? Faulty logic. Exactly. Great input. You aren't even beginning to participate in any discussion, just posting an opinion on an unrelated issue? Come on. Oh well, fine. I'll bite. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your conjecture is (in not so many words), if Obama appoints judges to the Supreme Court, he would appoint liberal judges that would fight any laws against gay marriage. 1. What's your basis for the logic? It seems like it's purely an opinion. 2. Why do you care about the title 'marriage' so much? 3. Why do you think oppression/segregation is still OK? Thanks.
scottweaver, Obama's voting record clearly speaks for itself. We know where he stands on these types of issues. If he appointed a conservative minded judge, I would be absolutely shocked. I think the vast majority of Americans would be too. As far as your other questions, I don't think I need to respond to those. They are an age old debate, and lets face it, you don't agree with me, but thats okay. You don't have to, this is America!
You're right, we don't have to agree but what good does it do us to not even try to come to a resolution? What if the north/south had never reached an agreement on the Civil War? Would they just say "let's face it, you don't agree with us but that's okay. You don't have to, this is the Union/Confederacy!" (Smiley face)? I don't think so, mister. :] I mean no one any ill will or harm but isn't the point of a forum to discuss things? I come here not only to discuss what I think but to hear what others think and have my points argued against and sometimes defeated, because hey -- I don't know what I don't know and if I'm believing something falsely, I want to know about it! Don't take this the wrong way -- I'm not trying to goad you into a debate, I just don't see the point in logging into a forum to say "we disagree, and that's cool." You know? I think there should be a discussion and that would most likely be the conclusion.
my point is nothing will change scott, nothing will ever ever change no matter what happens or who is president. i guarantee you.
But you're wrong -- it just did. A few states, including California and Florida, just banned gay marriage again. Snip-snap-snip-snap-snip. Overall, your guarantee is not worth much because I'm betting 150 years ago, you would've guaranteed me blacks wouldn't have equal rights and I'm betting even moreso, 100 years ago, you would've guaranteed me that women wouldn't ever get the right to vote. Oppression lasts only as long as the ignorance that created it is in power. You can quote me on that. I guarantee it.
My best guess is ... sometime soon after the church's hold is released from the government's family jewels.
I was wondering when the US government officially allowing the gay marriage just like the Canada do... Well, no matter what, I think that it will always be a dream for all the gay and lesbian in USA, which never come true...